The Shrine

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I'd definitely say that this is one of the greatest movies of all time. I've seen it at least 5 times and, despite the length, it never gets old.

Here's the thing I've been thinking about though: Do you think that it would have worked better for the story had Andy Dufrane not been shown as innocent of his crime?

I, for one, definitely think so. First off, it just works better with the title. The term "redemption" means atonement for sins; Andy, having no sin to begin with, has nothing to for which to atone.

Secondly, the way in which they exposed Andy's innocence is completely unbelievable. Ok, one, we're expected to believe that the very night Andy waited outside the house of his wife's lover, planning to shoot them both but then deciding against it, was the same night a burglar sneaks into their room and does the job for him. Alright, I suppose I can be persuaded to accept that - this is a movie, after all. But then we're expected to accept the fact that the guy to whom the burglar revealed the detailis of this particular crime just happens to be the guy who gets transferred to Shawshank a few years later and that guy just so happens to befriend Andy & Co. This is a ridiculous stretch for anyone to be expected to take.

Thirdly, one of the main themes of this film is the portrayal of criminals as people with real feelings and real good points and bad points just like non-criminals. Making the hero of the story out to be some sort of saint detracts from this theme. Instead of Andy Dufrane as the human criminal hoping for redemption among fellow human criminals and defying the injustices that no man deserves, criminal or no; we see Andy Dufrane the pure and innocent defying the corrupt and evil authorities. This adds a distinctly reductive element to what is otherwise a complex and challenging plot, and works against the film as a whole.

But what do <i>you</i> think?</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>It's really kinda irrelevant whether he did it or not. But it does make you feel better to know he was truly innocent. Also it sets up more of the plot. It's like he said, that he became a criminal after coming to prison.

Also the story is really about both Andy and Red, and I guess you could interpret the redemption isn't really for Andy's character as I would say its for Red's...was that his name? Morgan Freeman. Red is the one who leaves the prison as someone who atoned for his mistakes.

You're right though, Andy's innocence is totally unbelievable. I haven't read the actual short story, so I don't know if it was originally like that or just something they changed for the screenplay. I wouldn't put it past Stephen King though. He does stuff like this every now and then. Just totally contrived devices, where a character luckily witnessed something that he wasn't probable.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '><i>This is a ridiculous stretch for anyone to be expected to take.</i>

As you said, it's fiction (originaly a short story by Stephen King). But really, stranger things have happened in real life. It's not like they happened on different parts of the country, it's all in New England, probably Maine.

As for him being innocent... he was wrongly in jail for, what, <i>fifteen years</i>? That's a big part of his drive in the end—in fact, that <i>is</i> his drive in the end. He decides he doesn't belong there, and will just up and leave. Part of the point is that Andy is unjustly imprisoned.

"When they send you here for life, that's exactly what they take."</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Unbeleivable? It's very believable. It happens in real life - there are people who were on DEATH ROW for upwards of ten years before finally proving their innocence.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>I always missed the first part of the movie. Good lord...did I miss that much?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I think he was referring more to the insane coincidence that proved his innocence, not just the fact that he was innocent.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I think it would have been <i>less</i> believable had Andy been innocent. Don't forget, while he was in there, he did a helluva lot to improve the quality of life for his fellow inmates (the library, getting the GEDs, the beer on the rooftop, etc.). How could you possibly believe that a cold-blooded killer could do all that? Remember, this is a guy who was a top-notch banker, a thoroughly nice guy. You make him a killer and you destroy any credibility of what he does.

As for the "redemption" part, Kupek got it right IMO. Andy realized his mistake, his sin of ignoring his wife, sending her in to the arms of the golf pro because he was so distant. He realized it was his fault that she was even in that situation to begin with, so he feels partly responsible for her death, even though he didn't physically kill her. Remember, it took him 19 years to realize this, so it wasn't an overnight thing. It was like that with his friends as well. Those guys were all lifers and had obviously been there a while. They were also the only ones portrayed as "nice". I think the filmmakers wanted to show that there was actually a possibility that some people who commit violent crimes can actually become decent people. That's what the group of friends was for. Now, these guys didn't get like that overnight. Red was there for 20 years before Andy got there, which at that point was probably around half his life. Brooks was there even longer. Also, I really think Andy being the innocent one brought "redemption" to those around him. He showed his friends and even some of the other inmates (with the library and especially that stunt with the opera where he puts it over the speaker system; probably the most powerful scene in the film) what it's like to be a non-criminal. In order to become a "good' person, you need an example. Most people get it in the form of nurturing, the inmates got it in the form of Andy.

Yeah, I agree that the circumstances involving his wife's death and the young guy coming to Shawshank with his story about Blatch were a bit far-fetched, but they fit really well and weren't completely unbelievable. By the time Tommy came and told Andy, the audience basically forgot about Andy being innocent 'cause he had adapted so well to life on the inside and the story had gone far away from that. It was a good catalyst to the end of the movie. At that point, if the movie didn't receive a little bit of life into it, it would have just fizzled and this worked very well.

I do agree with you that it is one of the best movie's I've ever seen, but I wouldn't change a thing in it. To me, it wa one of those movie that just worked on every level, with everything it did.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Let me ask you a question: How could the story worked, as it was, if Andy was guilty? I don't see a way it could have. It hinged on the fact he was innocent</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I can be persuaded to believe that this burglar killed Andy's wife and lover on the same night that Andy was planning to kill them and didn't. Hell, I'll even believe that they both had the same gun. But that's about as far as I'll go for any story. To then add a further set of bizarre coincidences is just too much of a stretch.

And justifying it by saying "hey, it's fiction" is the same as saying "hey, it could happen." Sure, it could happen, but I could also have been abducted by space aliens last night who used me as a stud in their human/cow breeding program then used their amnesia ray on me so that I might forget the whole milk and jism splattered ordeal. But I still don't believe it did.

I do agree with you mostly in the second half of your post though. I don't think I would really want Andy's guilt determined any more than his innocence. I think that knowing Andy was guilty would add just as much reductivity (word?) to the plot as knowing that he is innocent. What I'd like is a question raised as to whether he was guilty or innocent. I would have liked it to remain a mystery instead of seeing this utterly contrived plot-device used to prove his innocence once and for all.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>You do bring up a good point about Andy's innocence improving the lives of those around him; however, I think the group of friends were all generally "good people" before Andy even arrived. Andy didn't make them decent men, he simply gave them hope - (cheesiness alert here) he showed them that though their bodies may be imprisoned, their hearts can still fly free.

I don't think, though, that it would take credibility from Andy's actions had a question been raised as to his guilt. The other inmates whom he befriended were not innocent, but that didn't take away from the decent things that they did. This was, as you said, a major theme in the film - that criminals (even killers) are human and capable of goodness.

But as I said in reply to Kupek, I don't really believe that his guilt should have been established any more than his innocence. Leaving the mystery unsolved would have added to the complexity of the story.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>If Andy's determined as guilty, he's a guy who doesn't feel like paying any more for his crime, which is a pretty empty and immoral theme. If he's determined as innocent, he's just the good guy against the bad guys, which is reductive. If he were left in a sort of liminal, ambiguous state between innocent and guilty, it would have given the story more complexity.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Oh, I checked up and Andy's last name is apparently spelled "Dufresne," so just ignore my original misspelling.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>The film starts out with Andy's trial where he's sentenced to two consecutive life terms, and there are a couple of ambiguous flashbacks of the murder night.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Still my favorite movie. I've always hoped Robbins and Freeman would do another movie together.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>The chances of what happened in the story happening are much, much greater than the alien abduction thing you came up with. It's conceivable within currently accepted frameworks of how the universe operates - strange shit like that happens all the time.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Leaving it hazy as to whether or not he was guilty would have made for a very boring and lame ending. Really, how COULD you end it if he wasn't proven innocent and did what he did? I always thought this was one of the best stories I've ever seen in a movie, nearly perfect</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Remember, his innocence isn't really determined until Tommy shows up 2/3rd of the way through the movie, so there's always a doubt 'til then. It was hazy in the beginning, leaning towards innocence, but not certain.

Proving his innocence came at a perfect time. It had to go one way or the other, and the way the story was going, innocent was WAAAY better. At that point, the plot really had nothing more it could offer in terms of Andy being in the prison, helping people out, building relationships with Red and the guys. It would have just fizzled away plot-wise.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>On this one, I'm gonna have to completely disagree. The plot would have fizzled away into nothingness without his innocence being proven. Then again, the warden could have been right and Tommy could have just made it up....</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Both are excellent actors. Hopefully they can get another excellent screenplay. BTW, does Robbins do many movies anymore? Isn't he mainly a producer?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>When did they prove his freedom? Or rather how did he prove it?</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>The second he left the jail, he became Randall Stevens, not Andy Dufresne. Even if they caught him, he could show them proof that he was Randall Stevens and they'd have to let him go</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Uh, no, that's not the way the criminal "justice" system works.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Yeah, think he's mainly doing that and directing/writing (I know he wrote and directed Cradle Will Rock). His acting seems to just come in the form of supporting roles lately.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Actually, I'm going to have to agree with you here. Only because his innocence being established is the main focus of a lot of the end of the film.</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Susan Surandon is slowly sucking the youth out of him in an attempt to appear young.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Who ever mentioned the criminal justice system? I think it's as clear as day. He had all of the ID to show he was Randall Stevens and a spot-on signature. He could simply say he resembled Andy Dufresne and prove he wasn't</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>You did. The criminal justice system is involved when it comes to apprehending suspects. It's not that easy to be absolved - there's a reason he fled the country.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, yeah, I didn't mean to imply he could buy a house beside the FBI headquarters and get away with it, just if anyone ever got suspicious about him, he could prove himself otherwise before he became a serious suspect</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>And I'm telling you, it don't work like that.</div>